


Malec, Coming Out, and Opression

by TerresDeBrume



Series: Meta crossposts [5]
Category: Mortal Instruments Series - Cassandra Clare
Genre: Bad Representation, Cassandra Clare - Freeform, Gen, Meta
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2014-12-22
Updated: 2015-01-03
Packaged: 2018-05-31 07:56:45
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 3
Words: 5,170
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/6462178
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/TerresDeBrume/pseuds/TerresDeBrume
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>In which I discuss Cassandra Clare's attitude and lack of awareness toward oppression and oppressed people, and how it affects her writing of Malec and my response to it.</p>
            </blockquote>





	1. For archiving purposes: Cassandra Clare's initial statement.

**Original post[here.](http://cassandraclare.tumblr.com/post/105912697354/fire-tests-gold)  Also saved on the Wayback Machine [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20160404225631/http://cassandraclare.tumblr.com/post/105912697354/fire-tests-gold).**

 

> _Hi! I really love Malec, but lately I’ve been seeing some divisions among Malec fans that upset me. The thing is that some of them argue that Magnus is at fault because he pressured Alec into coming out, and that he abuses his power as someone older. Others argue that Alec is at fault for going behind Magnus’s back with Camille to end Magnus’ life. I enjoy Magnus and Alec’s relationship but I was wondering if you thought Magnus was in the right or Alec was in the right because I never thought about having to choose before  —hereinthedayandtimes_  

At fault for what? A relationship that turned out great? :)

I think that when characters have problems in their relationships, readers sometimes react the way friends do in real life and support one character over the other. There are ways in which both characters are wrong, but lets look at why each one of them did what they did.

First, Magnus. I do think coming out is a deeply personal decision. No one can make you do it, or should do it for you. That said, the issue of one guy who is openly out dating a guy who is not out is one many, many real gay men in real life struggle with constantly. In other words, right or wrong, it is a problem real people have _all the time._  

For instance, here’s an [online discussion group for gay men in which one guy is having precisely this problem: he’s out, his boyfriend will not acknowledge their relationship](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Faskgaybros%2Fcomments%2F1zjcue%2F23m_my_boyfriend_wont_come_out_of_the_closet_for%2F&t=ZTNlNjBjMWUxZGRjMmE0MzEwMzUzNDczZjUzMmJkZmYyODUxOTQxOCxVSWQwOWNtdA%3D%3D). As you can see, the responders, who are all self-identified as gay men, have a range of responses.

_“I disagree with the posters in this thread who think that coming out is a personal decision that should happen whenever the closeted party feels like it. That’s only true when you’re not in a relationship. Once another person is in the picture, you have to take their feelings into account, full stop. If your partner is out and you aren’t, it’s unfair and untenable to make them complicit in a bundle of lies and deception for any longer than it takes for you to come out yourself, the sooner the better.”_

_“Looking at both sides of the story. I think both of you are right, and both of you are wrong, for different reasons, of course, but that’s the case. I think your boyfriend’s fear of coming out to his parents is a serious concern and it’s very selfish of you to push him to do so. Especially so if he think his parents may cut him off financially. That being said, it’s unacceptable for him to call you his “best friend” to his friends.”_  

Etc, and so on. You can read the whole thing yourself! There are millions of pages like this all over the internet and millions of guys having this conversation right now because this is a thing that happens. As a writer my job isn’t to decide whether this guy or his boyfriend is right. It’s to hear what the people in this situations are saying about them, and try to depict the situation as it might actually play out.

That’s my job as as a _fiction_ writer. My job as a _fantasy_ writer is to remember that there is more going on here than a guy pressuring his boyfriend to come out. Magnus is a Downworlder in a relationship with a Shadowhunter, a group that murdered warlocks for decades and still treat them as less valuable and less human. He’s got reasons to worry that Alec isn’t being open about what he’s doing because he’s  _ashamed of being with Magnus_. He also knows Alec thinks he’s in love with Jace, and has that to contend with. He has more reason than most people to believe Alec will never come out. On top of that, because Magnus _is_ out, and Alec is coming to his house practically every day, the relationship puts Magnus in a precarious position in Downworld with everyone who doesn’t like Shadowhunters. Any Downworlder might decide Magnus needs a nasty reminder not to mix with Shadowhunters. Meanwhile, Alec’s refusal to acknowledge Magnus as even a person he knows particularly well means Magnus is made vulnerable by dating Alec, but is also denied the protection that openly dating a Shadowhunter would confer. (Downworlders might not like Shadowhunters, but they are afraid of them.)

Alec’s parents were in the Circle. Magnus can remember things like the decorations of Tessa’s grandfather’s house, hung about with dead Downworlders. Magnus’s immortality means he experienced horrors at the hands of Alec’s kind before Alec was born and that does influence his behaviour. (Likewise it means that Magnus’s view on the Clave’s intolerance of Alec’s homosexuality is dim, dim indeed: to Alec these are people he loves and respects, to Magnus they are dangerous people upholding a harmful system.) Magnus has a lot of justified reasons for being jealous, sad and scared, and Alec is not risking more in this relationship than Magnus is.

All of that said, I think characters are made by what they do more than what they say. Magnus passes up many opportunities to _do_ anything to make Alec come out. Jace actually asks him for help in convincing Alec to come out; Magnus refuses. When Alec is about to come out to his family in CoA, Magnus _knocks him out_ so he can’t do it, because he knows Alec is under the influence of magic and not thinking rationally. He has an actual opportunity to let Alec come out, scot-free, no pressure from him, no blame to him, and no consequences to him, and he doesn’t take it.  

In City of Glass, Magnus withdraws from Alec, which is self-preservation. Alec’s not coming out is yes, his business. It is also materially hurting Magnus every day. Magnus has the right to protect himself. He has that right to withdraw.

It would probably be a good idea to think hard about how a person of color in a relationship with a privileged white boy is “abusing his power”, too. Issues of fantasy racism are at work in these books — Alec’s parents belonged to a hate group who cheerfully murdered people like Magnus, what a surprise Magnus is anxious — but issues of actual racism are as well.

Second, Alec. As you said in your ask, Magnus is older than Alec and more experienced. Alec feels that disparity keenly at times. He didn’t have a lot of people in his life who could possibly understand, so when an opportunity arrived in the form of Camille, he took it. She knew so much about Magnus and while she thought she was tempting Alec with the possibility of ending Magnus’s immortality (a truly terrible thing), she wasn’t. And what we know, and what Magnus _doesn’t_ know in CoLS, is that Alec wasn’t tempted by the idea of shortening Magnus’ life in any way as much as he way tempted by the information Camille could give him. He needed to know things about Magnus, because Magnus was keeping those things secret and not sharing them and it was causing Alec deep unhappiness. It _is_ hard to be in a relationship with someone who won’t tell you about themselves. (Just as it was hard for Magnus to be in a relationship with someone who would not acknowledge it.). Alec never meant for things to go as far as they did, but he isn’t experienced and the decision he made reflects that. He thought about doing a really awful thing. He didn’t go through with it. It was his first relationship, and he made a mistake. The mistake hurt Magnus badly, _and reminded him of the generations of Shadowhunters to whom Alec belongs, people who have always threatened his magic, people who have always threatened to take away his life._

Did Alec mean to place himself in the position of all those terrible people who came before? No, but that doesn’t mean Magnus wasn’t right to be hurt and right to cut himself off. Should he have given Alec more of a chance to explain? Yes, but we don’t always think clearly when blinded by hurt. It is a situation in which I sympathize with both of them.

I actually think they would have gotten back together without Edom. Magnus misses Alec terribly, the loss is not one-sided. They talk helpfully at the Institute. I think they would have talked again and worked it out. The fact that Alec proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that he doesn’t just not want to shorten Magnus’ life, he’ll do whatever he can to save it, just speeds the process along. And the fact that Magnus drops his secrecy and tells Alec all about himself speeds it along further.   

In short, I don’t think of either Alec or Magnus as wrong or evil. I think of them as good people who don’t always make the best choices (because no one does), but always make them for good reasons. I think of my job as being making them feel real, not deciding who is in the right.

So. You might be asking, why did I give them any flaws at all? Why not make them perfect and their relationship perfect? Magnus could be more supportive! Alec could be less insecure! I had the power to erase all their problems. So why didn’t I?

I suppose because I wanted them to seem like people.

To be fair, I get the question about every relationship in TMI, and all my writer friends also get the same question about all their relationships, straight and gay, though with the relationships that are not straight, we are often also asked why we did not present our gay characters and their relationships as perfect; don’t gay readers deserve to see happy, healthy relationships that they can aspire to?

And I agree with that. I do. I believe gay readers deserve to see happy relationships they can aspire to because I believe they deserve to see a spectrum of relationships. Straight readers get to see a spectrum of relationships, from good to bad to gritty to real to painful to uplifting. I believe gay readers deserve to see characters who feel real in relationships that feel real, like the kind of relationships people might actually have in life. An I believe they deserve happy endings with all my heart. But I also believe they don’t deserve boring, conflict free stories about cardboard cutout people who never do anything wrong, either! 

It has been said by many people more qualified than me to speak about these things that there are two ways to other a character from a marginalized group: demonize them, or idolize them.

[“Completely good isn’t good writing … Good and evil lie on a spectrum. It’s not black and white. Characters can have flaws without being evil.”](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Frosalarian.hubpages.com%2Fhub%2Fwriting-gay-characters&t=YzIzOGQzNDI3M2IyZGQzY2UyYzQ3ODE4ODhhMDNhZWI4Mzg0YjNmOCxVSWQwOWNtdA%3D%3D)

I’ve always thought that that was why for so long the gay couples we saw in media had been together a long time: they were the friendly neighbors, the mother figures, the loving teachers with wonderful relationships at home. We didn’t see them falling in love, screwing up and failing, forgiving and being forgiven, because all that stuff is hard and difficult and scariest of all, humanizing. Giving gay characters flaws is saying that they are people. They fall in and out of love, they misunderstand one another, they hurt one another without meaning to. Sometimes they hurt each other while meaning to. They mistrust each other sometimes, and trust each other others. Sometimes they’re selfish and tired and cranky.

_…“Gay couples were almost exclusively idyllic, sort of adhering to an unspoken mandate that their relationships should be perfect in order to prove that the idea of same-sex love is nothing for Americans to be scared of, because there was nothing any different about the way that they love from the way that “conventional” or “traditional” couples love. But in doing that, these TV portrayals ignored the way same-sex relationships were very much like their straight counterparts: as much love as there was, there was as much stress and complication and work. —_[Kevin Fallon on The Daily Beast](http://t.umblr.com/redirect?z=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.com%2Farticles%2F2014%2F09%2F25%2Fhow-to-get-away-with-gayness-shonda-rhimes-kills-tv-s-sex-stereotypes.html&t=Zjk2NjBkMDgxNjlmYzAzMjM0Y2M0MDY5MDM4Zjk5MzgxMWVjODQ1NyxVSWQwOWNtdA%3D%3D) on how "gay characters are finally allowed to have all the uncouth fun all the straight characters have been having” which is really interesting overall. 

One of the things about the way stories work is that they are about how people change. How they get better, or (in a tragedy) how they get worse. Ultimately, you’re always asking yourself: how does this character change? How do they alter? A relationship is also like a character: how does it grow? How does it change?

In part because of that (and in part because it’s realistic) no relationship is perfect/“healthy” at the outset. It can’t be. These are people who don’t know each other that well, falling into love or dating, taking something of a jump into the unknown. So much of human-produced art is about how difficult relationships are, how love slips out of our hands even when we badly want it because somehow, some way, we just can’t make it work. But we try, we keep trying anyway, because that’s what it means to be a human being.  After all, people aren’t good and good for other people because they never stumble or hurt them… They’re good for them ultimately despite the stumbling. 

So why did I not take away all of Magnus&Alec’s personal flaws and erase all their problems? —because I wanted them to feel like real people that could be related to, where readers gay and straight would be able to see their own insecurity, or difficulty trusting, or feeling of rejection, or sorrow over a breakup in their relationship — the things that happen to people, and not to perfect mannequins. Because the characters we love and care about have broken pieces. Magnus and Alec have problems, work through them, and in the end are happy together. M&A have learned to have faith in and trust each other, but if they had simply had faith in and trusted each other out of the gate, I don’t think we/they would have experienced it happening as a triumph. As relatable. As the kind of love – be it romantic or friendship or family love – that has come through fire and therefore we now know it can survive fire. Fire, after all, tests gold.


	2. Part I: I hear about Clare's post

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> So this was the message I received telling me about the post featured in the previous chapter, and my subsequent response.

> Oh, God. Somebody asked Cassandra Clare about Magnus pressuring Alec to come out (which is a legitimate problem that is often overlooked). I'm worried about reading her reply- it's been months, and I'm STILL angry about 'Alec is the most conservative Lightwood'. --cosimasgirl

 

Okay so I’m going to say it straight out: I’m often _very_ conflicted about what I read on CC’s blog. Admittedly, I don’t go there often —pretty rarely, even- but when I do it’s usually frustrating and complicated. Why?

Because in all honesty, there have been several instances in which the answers she gave were perfectly sensible. [On the whole, what she says in answer to this ask is perfectly reasonnable](http://cassandraclare.tumblr.com/post/105912697354/fire-tests-gold).  
Yes, queer characters should have flaws. Yes, queer relationships should have their ups and downs and _yes_ , to make queer relationships too perfect _is_ a form of othering.

What Cassandra Clare _doesn’t_ acknowledge, is the fact that Magnus’ attitude re: Alec’s coming out fits into a narrative that says “come out, you’ll be happier!” —Alec, post COG Kiss, is constantly described as happier and more assured than he was before.  
I’ve already discussed why Alec’s coming out is a terrible litterary choice (although I don’t have a separate post on that, maybe I should try and make one some day, but there’s a quick outline in [this post](http://terresdebrume.tumblr.com/post/105075630381/sebastianmorqenstern-a-brief-comparison-of-the), for anyone new to the conversation) but it’s not the only problem Malec has from a narrative standpoint.  
Aside from Alec’s coming out, Cassandra Clare also failed to portray —and, I think understand- a relationship between two person belonging to different ends of the oppressor/opressed spectrum. To quote:

> On top of that, because Magnus _is_ out, and Alec is coming to his house practically every day, the relationship puts Magnus in a precarious position in Downworld with everyone who doesn’t like Shadowhunters. Any Downworlder might decide Magnus needs a nasty reminder not to mix with Shadowhunters. Meanwhile, Alec’s refusal to acknowledge Magnus as even a person he knows particularly well means Magnus is made vulnerable by dating Alec, but is also denied the protection that openly dating a Shadowhunter would confer. (Downworlders might not like Shadowhunters, but they are afraid of them.)

This is the kind of things that _would_ work, if the oppressors (here, the Shadowhunters) were willing to _accept_ that relationship.  
See, that’s the thing about oppressive societies: they tend to only protect people they like and/or have a fetish/use for. The latter, of course, is contingent on how useful/pleasing the oppressed is at the time.  
If someone like Jace, for example, who is apparently well-liked and popular, and presented as the poster child for good Shadowhunters (a characterization I personally disagree with pretty strongly, but let’s stick to what we’re told he is here) were to date a Downworlder, _then_ that Downworlder would be “protected” so long as they were Jace’s plaything (If they became his official lover, chances are they’d both get in trouble for it.)

Alec, who supposedly lives in a highly homophobic society, would never bring Magnus this protection.  
In fact, if Cassandra Clare respected and understood her own setting, she’d realize it’s actually _safer_ for Magnus to keep the relationship a secret, because that way, the highly homophobic people Alec lives with can’t accuse Magnus of being the dirty downworlder who turned Alec gay.  
(Which, I agree, is bullshit reasonning, but it’s still one that’s painfully common, I’m afraid  ><)

And this is where Cassandra Clare’s reasonning becomes void.  
See, on the one hand, she _does_ say things that sound very logical (although I don’t always agree with them in full) but her answers completely fail to acknowledge that her books don’t _apply_ that logic.  
Cassandra Clare’s answer operates on the premises that Alec has the same position in Shadowhunters’ society as, say, Jace or Isabelle do, which, as per her own words in _City of Bones_ , would definitely not be the case at all. Notice how the words “homophobia” or “homophobe” don’t even appear in her answer?  
That’s because she’s completely stopped to take them into account, if she ever did.

Cassandra Clare wants us to remember all the various dynamics of opression affecting Malec, and I agree there are many, but she forgets one of the most basic of them, and that completely screws with her reasonning.

To be honest, this is the kind of things that prevent me from taking her seriously as a writer: she sets up things and is incapable of following through with it. Just related to homophobia/queerphobia we have:

  * A complete lack of acknowledgement re: Alec’s situation past Isabelle’s line in COB (and that includes her personal statements on the matter)
  * An impressive number of No-Homo moves, including Jordan equating masculinity with heterosexuality (because gay men aren’t real men?)
  * [In fact, she even manages to have _Alec_ go No-Homo on Simon, that’s how far it goes](http://terresdebrume.tumblr.com/post/100836203651/alec-simon-a-vampires-kiss-but-no-homo)
  * A definite agenda to push queer people to come out (as evidenced by the way she implies coming out was everything Alec needed to become more confident in himself)
  * The fact that Magnus basically gets slut-shamed. He is the only male character who gets it and he’s also, surprise surprise, the only Bi/Pan character of the story… correct me if I’m wrong, but that pretty much sounds like biphobia to me.
  * But Malec ends up together with a kid in the future and we’re supposed to accept that as the epitome of queer friendly writing.



Like, I’m willing to believe Clare wants to be queer friendly, but she fails so bad at it I don’t even see the point of asking her about it.  
Everytime I read her answers gets me a little angrier, because if people keep pointing out the same problems, there’s a point where you should tick and ask yourself how come so many people seem to aree.  
I don’t feel like she’s gone through that process.

Whenever I read her answers I feel like she’s regurgitating some kind of “queer friendly 101” cheatsheet and completely failing to apply it to the particular cases presented in her books, so in all honesty?  
To me this is just one more proof that Cassandra Clare either doesn’t get or doesn’t want to get what’s problematic with her books.

TL;DR: The question was valid and the answer would make sense if it didn’t miss the point so completely, so I’m just going to continue doing what I’ve been doing so far and characterize Alec & co however I want (which won’t be perfect either but at least I’ll enjoy making my own mistakes with them).  
And then sometimes I’ll rant about C. Clare and hope maybe it’s useful to at least a couple of persons on the internet.


	3. Part II: Further discussion

**Summary for the Chapter:**

> In which I attempt a more precise breakdown of the circumstances in which Malec have to evolve in the Mortal Instruments series and what that means (or should mean) for their relationship.

Okay so this is a new post because my answer to blue’s ask got pretty long as it is, and I think seeing the post too many times as it gets longer and longer would get pretty annoying really fast for a lot of people.  
In the present post, I’m going to get a little more into the specifics of Magnus’ position and what Clare got wrong in her perception of Magnus’ position re: his relationship with Malec.

[mairasrelicario](http://mairasrelicario.tumblr.com/) reblogged your post and added:

> Yes. All of this, yes. :/
> 
> Though I do agree with something that CC wrote on that post:
> 
> “All of that said, I think characters are made by what they do more than what they say. Magnus passes up many opportunities to  _do_  anything to make Alec come out. Jace actually asks him for help in convincing Alec to come out; Magnus refuses. When Alec is about to come out to his family in CoA, Magnus  _knocks him out_  so he can’t do it, because he knows Alec is under the influence of magic and not thinking rationally. He has an actual opportunity to let Alec come out, scot-free, no pressure from him, no blame to him, and no consequences to him, and he doesn’t take it.  
> 
> In City of Glass, Magnus withdraws from Alec, which is self-preservation. Alec’s not coming out is yes, his business. It is also materially hurting Magnus every day. Magnus has the right to protect himself. He has that right to withdraw.”

Yes, I agree Magnus totally has a right to leave a situation that doesn’t suit him—I’m sorry if what I say makes it sound otherwise ><

That being said, this paragraph by CC fails to take into account the fact that Magnus took part in Alec’s outing in the same chapter —there’s maybe ten pages of distance, if that?  
Like, okay, Magnus knocks Alec out before he can come out without being prepared for it, but considering what happen right before, I don’t put much stock in that action tbh.

And like I said above, I agree that what CC. said makes sense and is true. The part you quoted above _is_ right, in that Magnus _does_ have a right to disengage if he doesn’t want to hide a relationship. that _is_ his right.  
I just happen to think it’s illogical and unrealistic for Magnus to insist so much on being open about his relationship with _Alec_ specifically, because both of their positions make it _safer_ for them _both_ to hide their relationship.

Or, you know. It would, if Cassandra Clare stepped up to the plate and actually had consequences to her setting.

Fact I:  
The Shadow World is pretty much entirely ruled by Shadowhunters, who have the law on their side, and the ability to do pretty much what they want to Downworlders who don’t act the way Shadowhunters want them to.  
**Evidence:** The fact that Jace, a 17 years old boy, can convincingly threaten Magnus, a 300-500 years old warlock, with a visit from the Clave, something that’s enough for Magnus to basically do everything he’s told from then on. (Yes, he says he doesn’t want to help them, and then it’s implied he helps them from some sort of affection for Clary, but considering the circumstances it’s also possible to interpret this as Magnus knowing he can’t say no and trying to save the appearances.)

Fact II:  
Said Shadowhunters have, historically, killed and massacred Downworlders at will, and there’s no indication that they have laws against that. (And even if they had, I’m pretty sure a look at the recent discussion of the condition in which black americans live their lives in the US will tell you how likely it is that those laws would be respected.)  
**Evidence:** I’m pretty sure every Downworlder in TMI mentions it at some point, and it’s confirmed by the attitude of the Clave.

Fact III:  
Maryse and Robert were part of a group of teenagers that hated Downworlders hard enough that it freaked out even their Downworlders-hating society into exiling them. That’s a whole lot of hate right there, and plenty of reasons for Magnus to be cautious about the Lightwoods because, even if they’re not in the best standing in Idris at the moment of TMI, they still do have the law on their side and a whole lot of motivation to use it in order to make Magnus’ life miserable for the hell of it.

Considering all this _and_ the fact that oppressive societies are generally keen on having everyone stay in their place (one of the most obvious examples being the US a few years back re: racial divisions, but if you look at class systems in medieval  & renaissance Europe you’ll see that these were pretty much the same, and those unspoken rules still exist today in many ways) Magnus is taking risks just by _being around_ Shadowhunters outside of professional relations.

Granted, this is yet another case of Clare not applying (or understanding?) the consequences of her settings since Magnus spends a lot of time with Shadowhunters and wery few people seem to bat an eye at that, which strikes me as very unlikely (see, for example, the Bne Chronicles, and how often Magnus ends up associating with Shadowhunters without any particular reaction from other Downworlders)  
Still, all of this means that dating _any_ shadowhunter is a risky business for Magnus. It doesn’t mean I think he shouldn’t be allowed to date a Shadowhunter, far from it! It just means that dating one of them is risky, and it should inform the way Magnus is written. It doesn’t.

To add to this:

Fact IV:  
Shadowhunters are a highly sexist and homophobic (and by extension, most likely epheminophobic as well) society.  
**Evidence:** Isabelle straight out states this in COB.  
This means that Alec, on top of being part of a family that is (presumably) not very popular in their society, will (or would) suffer from a _lot_ of prejudice, meaning there will (or would) be people who want to make his life hell on principle.  
Hurting him and his partner are an efficient way to do this.

Fact V:  
The prejudice about Downworlders comes from the fact that they have Demon blood.  
**Evidence:** It’s implied throughout TMI, but as I recall there’s a more slightly more explicit statement of this during the scene at Taki’s in COB; Not to mention, of course, the blatant bliblical themes.  
Warlocks are _half_ _demon_. It stands to reason that they’d get the brunt of the racism against downworlders due to this (like a supernatural kind of colorism, if you wish).

So to summarize: Magnus belongs to the social group that (we can assume) Shadowhunters despise the most _and_ he’s bisexual (which is often perceived as worse than being gay) to boot, which would mean he’d get twice as much hate from Shadowhunter society, just for existing.

Now try to put yourself in the mindset of a bigoted person for a moment.  
you hate queers, and you hate Downworlders. You want them out of the world and you _especially_ want them out of your house. Just having a queer guy in your house would be a source of shame and anger (possibly hatred). So when that guy starts dating a Downworlder (whom you hate even more) do you _really_ think you’d protect said Downworlder? No, you wouldn’t.

Magnus is 300/500+ years old. He knows this. He knows how this works. Having him _push_ for an open relationship with Alec, in my opinion, can only mean one of two things:

  1. Magnus is naive at best, foolish at worse, and that foolishness might cost him a _lot_ in the future.
  2. Cassandra Clare doesn’t get it.



Quite frankly, given the inconsistent canon, the inconsistent characterization, and some statements so ridiculous and offensive they still have me seething (I’m thinking, among other things, of the section about queer marriages in the _Codex_ ) my bet is on the latter.

But okay, let’s pretend for a sec that all of the above is irrelevant. Let’s pretend that things really are as Clare describes, and that Magnus should really fear Downworlders more than Shadowhunters (which is _so_ not the case, btw.). It _is_ his right to leave Alec because of right.

What is _not_ his right is to pressure Alec to come out. There’s a big difference between the two attitude, in my opinion. One of them is Magnus protecting himself and respecting his needs and desires, the other is Magnus pushing Alec into a precarious position to suit what _Magnus_ thinks he should do.

The way I feel about Magnus’ attitude post-COA (and I acknowledge this part is a lot more subjective than the rest of my argument) is that if he’d only wanted to protect himself he would have clearly broken up with Alec, and told him why (which is why I’m more accepting of the COLS breakup, for example. Even though I hated this storyline with a passion, I get where Magnus comes from and I find the way he broke up with Alec was a lot cleaner and more honest).

Instead, he simply stopped talking to Alec without even bothering to clarify their situation first. True, explicitely breaking up with Alec might not have prevented Alec from going after Magnus (COLS & COHF are proof of that) but at the very least it would have been more honest, and wouldn’t have left Alec alone to try and figure out what he did wrong.  
(Which, I feel compelled to point out, he _didn’t_ do anything wrong. It wasn’t wrong of him not to want to come out, and it angers me that Magnus reacted like it was.)


End file.
